Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 61.523 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 61.523 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 61.523

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 61.523
61.523 Appearance of parties and child.
(1) In a child custody proceeding in this state, the court may order a party to the proceeding who is in this state to appear before the court in person with or without the child. The court may order any person who is in this state and who has physical custody or control of the child to appear in person with the child.
(2) If a party to a child custody proceeding whose presence is desired by the court is outside this state, the court may order that a notice given pursuant to s. 61.509 include a statement directing the party to appear in person with or without the child and informing the party that failure to appear may result in a decision adverse to the party.
(3) The court may enter any orders necessary to ensure the safety of the child and of any person ordered to appear under this section.
(4) If a party to a child custody proceeding who is outside this state is directed to appear under subsection (2) or desires to appear in person before the court with or without the child, the court may require another party to pay reasonable and necessary travel and other expenses of the party so appearing and of the child.
History.s. 5, ch. 2002-65.

F.S. 61.523 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.523 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.523


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.523
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.523.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All
  1. Bender v. Hornback

    322 So. 3d 718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)
    Because the circuit court did not comply with section 61.528 by giving the former husband notice, the ex parte order domesticating the North Carolina order is void. See Renovaship, Inc. v. Quatremain , 208 So. 3d 280, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("The general principle of law is well-settled: a final judgment entered without adequate notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard is void." (footnote omitted)). Accordingly, the circuit court should have granted the former husband's motion to vacate the ex parte order. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) (providing that a court may relieve a party from a final order that is void). We reverse the order denying the former husband's motion to vacate and remand with directions for the circuit court to vacate the ex parte order and comply with the procedure required by section 61.528. On remand, the former husband will have an opportunity to challenge the North Carolina court's jurisdiction under sections 61.514 through 61.523.
    PAGE 721
  2. This Court has the authority to issue an arrest warrant to pick up the minor child. Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the "Convention"), but any order removing a child from a person having physical control of the child must meet the applicable requirements of state law. Florida's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA") permits the Court to enter such "orders as necessary to ensure the safety of the child and of any person ordered to appear under this section." Fit. Stat, § 61.523( 3). Pursuant to the UCCJEA, "[i]f the court, upon the testimony of the petitioner or other witness, finds that the child is likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm or removal from this state, it may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child." Fla. Stat. 61.534 (2). Other federal courts have issued arrest warrants after holding an emergency ex parte evidentiary hearing and ordered the minor child to reside with the petitioner pending resolution of the matter. See, e.g., Moreno v. Martin, 2008 WL 4716958, at * 7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2008); Bocquet v…
  3. Dyce v. Christie

    17 So. 3d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 1 times
    "A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501- 61.523. . . . [A] child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this part must be recognized and enforced under ss. 61.524- 61.540." § 61.506(1), (2), Fla. Stat.
  4. Cobo v. Sierralta

    13 So. 3d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Cobo, pointing to numerous visits to Venezuela, claimed that Florida's courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate custody issues. However, it is clear that Florida was the home state of the parties' child, that the child had resided in Florida a majority of the time, and that the child had lived here for six months immediately before this action was brought. See § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) (stating that "a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination" where "[t]his state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding"); see also § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2008) (defining "home state" as "the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding," and providing that "[a] period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period"); § 61.506(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that "[a] court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501- 61.523" ); Karam v. Karam, 6 So.3d 87, (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that…
  5. Giventer v. Giventer

    863 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times
    If a proceeding for enforcement under ss. 61.524- 61.540 is commenced in a court of this state and the court determines that a proceeding to modify the determination is pending in a court of another state having jurisdiction to modify the determination under ss. 61.514- 61.523, the enforcing court shall immediately communicate with the modifying court. The proceeding for enforcement continues unless the enforcing court, after consultation with the modifying court, stays or dismisses the proceeding.
    PAGE 440

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    D. DYCE, v. CHRISTIE,, 17 So. 3d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501-61.523 . . .

    COBO, v. SIERRALTA,, 13 So. 3d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501-61.523 . . .

    GIVENTER, v. GIVENTER,, 863 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    . . . petitioner to obtain an order from a court having jurisdiction under the criteria specified in ss. 61.514 61.523 . . . pending in a court of another state having jurisdiction to modify the determination under ss. 61.514-61.523 . . .